although I used OS/2 a lot in the past, my last experience was in 1999 and that was helping out with a legacy project. I don't think that we should have support for OS/2 in Libgcrypt, proper. However, if you want to maintain an unofficial branch for OS/2 in our repo, we can do that. That would also not require any copyright assignments.

Werner Koch wrote: > Hi, > > although I used OS/2 a lot in the past, my last experience was in 1999 > and that was helping out with a legacy project. I don't think that we > should have support for OS/2 in Libgcrypt, proper. However, if you want > to maintain an unofficial branch for OS/2 in our repo, we can do that.

Do you mean 'fork' ?

Or 'merge' OS/2 codes to the official source tree, but the binaries for OS/2 are not distributed ?

> Or 'merge' OS/2 codes to the official source tree, but the binaries for > OS/2 are not distributed ?

I mean that we can out a separate OS/2 ranch into our GIT repo and you take care of maintaining it. We won't do any releases for it; that would be your task. The advantage of having it in the official repro is that it gives your project a better visibility.

> Anyway, I willing to maintain OS/2 codes.

What about this: I create an OS2-BRANCH from 1.6 (master) and you send me patches for that one. I suggest to use master and not 1.5.

Werner Koch wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:40, komh78 [at] gmail said: > >> Or 'merge' OS/2 codes to the official source tree, but the binaries for >> OS/2 are not distributed ? > > I mean that we can out a separate OS/2 ranch into our GIT repo and you > take care of maintaining it. We won't do any releases for it; that > would be your task. The advantage of having it in the official repro is > that it gives your project a better visibility. >

Ok.

>> Anyway, I willing to maintain OS/2 codes. > > What about this: I create an OS2-BRANCH from 1.6 (master) and you send > me patches for that one. I suggest to use master and not 1.5. >

Fine. I applied your patch to the OS2-BRANCH. I also added a note to the README file telling that this is an unofficial port. If you have further patches, please send them to the list (if they are small <40KB or so) or larger ones directly to me.

Despite that the unofficial state, I suggest to follow the suggestion on how to write commit log messages from doc/HACKING.

Werner Koch wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:50, komh78 [at] gmail said: > >> And I'm using master. Am I wrong ? > > Fine. I applied your patch to the OS2-BRANCH. I also added a note to > the README file telling that this is an unofficial port. If you have > further patches, please send them to the list (if they are small <40KB > or so) or larger ones directly to me. >

Thanks for your work.

BTW, I cannot find the log for a my patch and the modified README.

'git log origin/OS2-BRANCH' say nothing about them.

What's wrong ?

> Despite that the unofficial state, I suggest to follow the suggestion on > how to write commit log messages from doc/HACKING. >

Werner Koch wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:50, komh78 [at] gmail said: > > >> And I'm using master. Am I wrong ? >> > Fine. I applied your patch to the OS2-BRANCH. I also added a note to > the README file telling that this is an unofficial port. If you have > further patches, please send them to the list (if they are small <40KB > or so) or larger ones directly to me. > > Despite that the unofficial state, I suggest to follow the suggestion on > how to write commit log messages from doc/HACKING. >

I attach the patch whose commit log message is modified in according to doc/HACKING.